D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Oofta]

And even if it was, the post to which you replied would have missed the point in my view. To wit:
This is why it matters to distinguish the player and the character. You, here, are talking about how the character in the fiction comes to find themselves caught up in their struggles. But this thread is about player agency, which is who gets to decide what the fiction will be about, what sorts of things it will include, etc.

Here's a concrete illustration of the point, from 4e D&D Dark Sun play:
That character, the gladiator, is called into action by events outside his control.

But that is quite distinct from the role of the player in deciding what the focus of play will be, what the dramatic needs of this character are, and how those are related.

I've just given an example that illustrates how they contrast.

As I have repeatedly posted, including several times in reply to you, nor do I. I've just posted another example of high player agency D&D play.

I know what you think, I just disagree. Hardly the end of the world.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

players can drive the fiction perfectly well without the ability to directly affect how the fiction exists as players (not characters)

How?

How do you drive without touching the reins, or doing something equivalent?

Narrativism isn't trying to emulate a three-act structure or classic heroes journey.

To be clear, I'm sure someone could try, or perhaps already has tried, to do something like that. It's not impossible. But the overwhelming majority of "nar" games are not trying to do that, not even slightly.

 

[CreamCloud0]

How?

How do you drive without touching the reins, or doing something equivalent?

Well we somehow manage it in real life, where we only ever get to control ourselves, we do so by interacting and investigating and making actions at the things that we want our world to involve more of

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well we somehow manage it in real life, where we only ever get to control ourselves, we do so by interacting and investigating and making actions at the things that we want our world to involve more of

How do you drive a car if you are not allowed to touch the steering wheel at all?

The things you are describing are not driving the fiction. They are certainly other things which may or may not be agency. But they are, often, not being in the metaphorical driver's seat of your life. Many people IRL have their agency very heavily curtailed, so the fact that IRL people sometimes have agency is not really a rebuttal.

Edit: The car (or carriage) metaphor is more apt the more I think on it. A "backseat driver" is a known concept, someone who (attempts to) dictate where the actual driver goes. The driver, unless literally coerced or under some social requirement (e.g. a chauffeur), has no obligation to do any of that. If they happen to drive to where the "backseat driver" wants to go, it is not because the person in the back seat actually did any driving. It is because the driver decided something and that something coincided with the back seat person's interests.

Conversely, consider something like "driving," or rather piloting, the starship Enterprise. Sulu is the helmsman, but he directly relies on other command officers to do his job. He relies on Scotty to maintain and manage the engines (hence Kirk occasionally commanding Scotty to squeeze out more power than the engines are intended to produce), without which no motion is possible. He relies on Spock to report and analyze the sensor readings, without which he would be flying blind and ignorant. He relies on Chekhov for threat analysis and tactical information, without which the ship could not evade danger. He relies on Uhura for communications and computer support, without which his instructions to the computer would be useless.

Sulu has the direct hand on the metaphorical tiller, but four other officers are also touching that tiller in some way, at some time. That's literally part of why they are present on the ship at all. Each performs a task that is materially part of piloting the ship.

So, when the jobs of Scotty, Spock, Uhura, and Chekhov are all performed by Sulu, and some non-officer person says, "Sulu, you should fly to Vulcan," who has agency there, if agency means driving (or piloting)? Sulu is under no obligation to obey suggestions from lowe-ranking crew. He is already assuming the duties of every officer who has any material effect on the outcome. What "agency" does this random crew member have? The ability to walk the ship until it reaches its destination? Even an animal would have that.

 

[Oofta]

How do you drive a car if you are not allowed to touch the steering wheel at all?

The things you are describing are not driving the fiction. They are certainly other things which may or may not be agency. But they are, often, not being in the metaphorical driver's seat of your life. Many people IRL have their agency very heavily curtailed, so the fact that IRL people sometimes have agency is not really a rebuttal.

Edit: The car (or carriage) metaphor is more apt the more I think on it. A "backseat driver" is a known concept, someone who (attempts to) dictate where the actual driver goes. The driver, unless literally coerced or under some social requirement (e.g. a chauffeur), has no obligation to do any of that. If they happen to drive to where the "backseat driver" wants to go, it is not because the person in the back seat actually did any driving. It is because the driver decided something and that something coincided with the back seat person's interests.

Conversely, consider something like "driving," or rather piloting, the starship Enterprise. Sulu is the helmsman, but he directly relies on other command officers to do his job. He relies on Scotty to maintain and manage the engines (hence Kirk occasionally commanding Scotty to squeeze out more power than the engines are intended to produce), without which no motion is possible. He relies on Spock to report and analyze the sensor readings, without which he would be flying blind and ignorant. He relies on Chekhov for threat analysis and tactical information, without which the ship could not evade danger. He relies on Uhura for communications and computer support, without which his instructions to the computer would be useless.

Sulu has the direct hand on the metaphorical tiller, but four other officers are also touching that tiller in some way, at some time. That's literally part of why they are present on the ship at all. Each performs a task that is materially part of piloting the ship.

So, when the jobs of Scotty, Spock, Uhura, and Chekhov are all performed by Sulu, and some non-officer person says, "Sulu, you should fly to Vulcan," who has agency there, if agency means driving (or piloting)? Sulu is under no obligation to obey suggestions from lowe-ranking crew. He is already assuming the duties of every officer who has any material effect on the outcome. What "agency" does this random crew member have? The ability to walk the ship until it reaches its destination? Even an animal would have that.

If Sulu wanted to he certainly could go in any direction he wanted. Then others could use their agency to stop him. In a group game, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few but both the many and the few have agency.

We all have restrictions and constraints, as to players in any game. That doesn't mean we do not have agency, or at least most of us do.

 

[pemerton]

I know what you think, I just disagree.

What do you disagree with? I mean, I posted an example of play which involved a player exercising control over the content of the fiction, that did not mean that that player's character was exercising control over fictional events. Are you saying that that's wrong, and that the character was exercising that control?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If Sulu wanted to he certainly could go in any direction he wanted. Then others could use their agency to stop him. In a group game, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few but both the many and the few have agency.

We all have restrictions and constraints, as to players in any game. That doesn't mean we do not have agency, or at least most of us do.

Folks in this thread have repeatedly and explicitly indicated that such agency being expressed by the players is unwelcome unless it is in the form of "vote with your feet."

 

[Oofta]

What do you disagree with? I mean, I posted an example of play which involved a player exercising control over the content of the fiction, that did not mean that that player's character was exercising control over fictional events. Are you saying that that's wrong, and that the character was exercising that control?

I don't think there's significant difference between player and character agency, both are expressions of agency and there's no reason to distinguish between the two. In either case, it's a person making choices and exercising options. The person playing the game has agency as far as the game is concerned, it doesn't matter what rule structure they use.

Feel free to disagree.

 

[Oofta]

Folks in this thread have repeatedly and explicitly indicated that such agency being expressed by the players is unwelcome unless it is in the form of "vote with your feet."

This has nothing to do with the roles of the different people at the table (player vs DM). If Chuck takes actions the rest of the group disagrees with, other members of the group are free to counter Chuck's actions. D&D is a group game, in most cases people play along with what the group wants for sake of cohesion.

 

[SteveC]

I am a huge fan of 4E D&D, but I have to admit that the method of play here is something I am unaware of. I am assuming this was discussed in the DMG? I'm wondering if this attitude is part of the reason people did not like that edition.

(Please note: no edition warring here, I'm not saying anything bad about any edition, nor am I trying to pick a fight. I just think this play style is controversial and wonder if it's one of the reasons for the game's controversy. I know the other reasons, but hadn't heard about this).